Latest news with #environmentalpolicy
E&E News
4 days ago
- Business
- E&E News
Westerman, Golden unveil NEPA overhaul package
House Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman on Friday released sweeping legislation to change the National Environmental Policy Act review process. The 'Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act,' co-sponsored by moderate Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, is a starting point in broader talks between the parties and the chambers toward a bipartisan permitting deal. 'America's model of successful environmental stewardship alongside strong economic growth is being hobbled by a more than half-century old permitting process that is overdue for a tuneup,' Westerman said in a statement. Advertisement 'Although well-intentioned, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has not kept up with the times which is bad for both our environment and our economy,' he said.
CTV News
14-07-2025
- Science
- CTV News
Trump administration says it won't publish major climate change report on NASA website as promised
John Holdren, professor of Environmental Science and Public Policy in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, speaks at the Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy presentations in Pittsburgh on Oct. 17, 2007. (AP / Keith Srakocic) WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Monday took another step to make it harder to find major, legally mandated scientific assessments of how climate change is endangering the nation and its people. Earlier this month, the official government websites that hosted the authoritative, peer-reviewed national climate assessments went dark. Such sites tell state and local governments and the public what to expect in their backyards from a warming world and how best to adapt to it. At the time, the White House said NASA would house the reports to comply with a 1990 law that requires the reports, which the space agency said it planned to do. But on Monday, NASA announced that it aborted those plans. 'The USGCRP (the government agency that oversees and used to host the report) met its statutory requirements by presenting its reports to Congress. NASA has no legal obligations to host data,' NASA Press Secretary Bethany Stevens said in an email. That means no data from the assessment or the government science office that coordinated the work will be on NASA, she said. On July 3, NASA put out a statement that said: 'All preexisting reports will be hosted on the NASA website, ensuring continuity of reporting.' 'This document was written for the American people, paid for by the taxpayers, and it contains vital information we need to keep ourselves safe in a changing climate, as the disasters that continue to mount demonstrate so tragically and clearly,' said Texas Tech climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe. She is chief scientist at The Nature Conservancy and co-author of several past national climate assessments. Copies of past reports are still squirreled away in the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's library and the latest report and its interactive atlas can be seen here. Former Obama White House science adviser and climate scientist John Holdren accused the administration of outright lying and long intended to censor or bury the reports. 'The new stance is classic Trump administration misdirection,' Holdren said. 'In this instance, the administration offers a modest consolation to quell initial outrage over the closure of the site and the disappearance of the National Climate Assessments. Then, two weeks later, they snatch away the consolation with no apology.' 'They simply don't want the public to see the meticulously assembled and scientifically validated information about what climate change is already doing to our farms, forests, and fisheries, as well as to storms, floods, wildfires, and coast property — and about how all those damages will grow in the absence of concerted remedial action,' Holdren said in an email. That's why it's important that state and local governments and every day people see these reports, Holdren said. He said they are written in a way that is 'useful to people who need to understand what climate change is doing and will do to THEM, their loved ones, their property and their environment.' 'Trump doesn't want people to know,' Holdren wrote. The most recent report, issued in 2023, found that climate change is affecting people's security, health and livelihoods in every corner of the country in different ways, with minority communities, particularly Native Americans, often disproportionately at risk. ___ Seth Borenstein, The Associated Press
The Guardian
09-07-2025
- Automotive
- The Guardian
New York City's congestion pricing has cut pollution and traffic – but Trump still wants to kill it
It has faced threats and lawsuits and even had its death proclaimed by Donald Trump as he startlingly depicted himself as a king in a social media post. But New York City's congestion charge scheme for cars has now survived its first six months, producing perhaps the fastest ever environmental improvement from any policy in US history. New York vaulted into a global group of cities – such as London, Singapore and Stockholm – that charge cars for entering their traffic-clogged metropolitan hearts but also ushered in a measure that was unknown to Americans and initially unpopular with commuters, and was confronted by a new Trump administration determined to tear it down. But the six-month anniversary, on 5 July, of congestion pricing highlights a string of remarkable successes. Traffic congestion in Manhattan, site of the $9 charge zone, is substantially down, cars and buses are moving faster, air quality is improving as carbon emissions drop, a creaking public transportation system has new verve and there are fewer car accidents, injuries and opportunities for incandescent New Yorker honking and yelling. In an era of assaults upon climate policy and societal betterment in general across US and around the world, New York's congestion busting has been a rare flicker of progress in 2025. 'It's been even more obviously beneficial than even the most fervent proponents had hoped, and there have been really tangible improvements that are really gratifying,' said Ben Furnas, executive director of Transportation Alternatives, a New York-based pro-transit group. 'It's been incredible to see.' Congestion pricing in New York had a tortured birth – the state's governor, Kathy Hochul, initially delayed it and cut the charge for drivers from $15 to $9, citing cost-of-living concerns – but since its January introduction the system appears to be achieving its aims. Spanning the southern tip of downtown Manhattan northwards to 60th Street, the congestion charge zone has slashed traffic delays by a quarter, with around 2m fewer cars a month now entering streets previously gridlocked in traffic. Vehicles that were previously crawling at a pace slower than a horse and cart are now moving more smoothly, with traffic speeds rising by 15%. Carbon pollution, meanwhile, has dropped by about 2.5%, with air pollution such as soot that can bury deep in people's lungs also down. Despite the faster traffic, fewer people are being directly hurt by car accidents, too. The experiment has been a reminder that cities aren't intrinsically noisy even if cars are – Furnas said that one of his favorite stats is that noise complaints along Canal Street, a key artery in lower Manhattan, have reduced by 70%. 'The quality-of-life improvement has been dramatic,' he said. 'Reducing pollution is often seen to involve a lot of sacrifices, but this has been different. People can see the improvements to their lives. There was this cynical assumption that this was a bullshit charge and life will stay the same but that assumption has gone away now.' Scaling public unpopularity in this way isn't new – London's congestion charge met initial opposition in 2003 and then, more recently, an expansion of the city's ultra-low emission zone (or Ulez) was bitterly contested. London's air quality has improved markedly and support has since edged up, though, a forerunner of the New York experience, where more people now support the charge than oppose it – a reversal of what the polls showed prior to its imposition. A primary motivation for the congestion charge was to raise funds for the beleaguered Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which presides over one of the most extensive public transport systems in the world but has struggled with a spluttering subway that runs on antediluvian technology through often squalid stations. Fears of subway-based crime, regularly amplified by the Trump administration, have also bedeviled the MTA's attempts to lure commuters back following Covid. Congestion pricing revenue, though, is on track to reach $500m this year, allowing upgrades to the subway, the purchase of several hundred new electric buses and improvements to regional rail. Hochul, with the zeal of new convert, said the scheme has been a 'huge success' and pointed out that people are still flocking to Manhattan stores, restaurants and Broadway shows, with pedestrian activity up 8% in May compared with the same month last year. Subway visits have also increased by 7%. 'We've also fended off five months of unlawful attempts from the federal government to unwind this successful program and will keep fighting – and winning – in the courts,' the governor said. 'The cameras are staying on.' Trump has continued his quest to kill off congestion charging in his native city, however, prematurely declaring success in this endeavor in a memorable February post on X in which he was depicted in an oil painting wearing a crown, triumphantly standing in front of the Empire State Building. 'CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!' the president wrote. Trump's Department of Transportation has attempted to withdraw federal approval of the scheme but its deadlines to end congestion pricing have so far been thwarted by the courts and the department has, in frustration, replaced its own lawyers, accusing them of undermining its case. Sean Duffy, the US transportation secretary, has said the charge is unfair to drivers and is 'classist' against the working poor (even though they overwhelmingly take buses or trains, rather than drive), and threatened to cut federal funding to New York transit. 'If you can't keep your subway safe, if people can't go to the subway and not be afraid of being stabbed or thrown in front of tracks or burned, we are going to pull your money,' Duffy said in March. The administration confirmed it will forge ahead with its legal battle. 'In the 11th hour of his failing administration, Joe Biden cowardly approved this absurd experiment that makes federally funded roads inaccessible to many taxpayers without giving them a toll-free alternative,' said a Department of Transportation spokesperson. 'We can all agree that the New York City subway needs fixing, but drivers should not be expected to foot the bill.' But the series of courtroom defeats suffered by the Trump administration have strengthened the congestion charge's future, according to Michael Gerrard, an environmental law expert at Columbia Law School. 'The administration have suffered a series of resounding defeats, they haven't got anywhere,' said Gerrard. 'It's clear that Donald Trump doesn't like New York City and wants to do anything he can to increase the use of fossil fuels. I don't know if Donald Trump has ever been on the subway.' Other opposition remains, too, although it has become more muted of late. A leading critique of congestion pricing was that it will simply pile up traffic at the boundaries of the charge zone, although a recent report found the opposite has occurred – traffic delays are down 10% in the Bronx and have even been reduced by 14% in the commuter belt of Bergen county, in New Jersey. 'Conceptually it's a good idea, but let's get a fair deal for Jersey,' conceded Phil Murphy, governor of New Jersey, on a recent podcast with the comedian Hasan Minhaj. Murphy previously called the charge a 'disaster' and is still involved in legal action to stop it, although he now says he will accept a 'deal' whereby his state gets some of the revenue and the toll is lowered somewhat. Murphy acknowledged traffic is down but he questions if it will last. 'The data from London suggests it won't continue,' said the governor, pointing to how the UK capital is now the most congested city in Europe, with drivers spending an average of 101 hours sitting in traffic last year, despite its own toll. However, others think New York may be different, a long-term habit switch from driving thanks to its dense public transport links. If it survives its Trumpian attack, the scheme may even be replicated by cities elsewhere in the US. If highways and bridges can be tolled, as they often are in the US, why not the core of cities too? 'It's been such a success that I think others will look at this,' said Furnas. 'Not everywhere has New York's public transit, but we would be wise to apply these sort of benefits to other places, too.'
The Guardian
09-07-2025
- Automotive
- The Guardian
New York City's congestion pricing has cut pollution and traffic – but Trump still wants to kill it
It has faced threats and lawsuits and even had its death proclaimed by Donald Trump as he startlingly depicted himself as a king in a social media post. But New York City's congestion charge scheme for cars has now survived its first six months, producing perhaps the fastest ever environmental improvement from any policy in US history. New York vaulted into a global group of cities – such as London, Singapore and Stockholm – that charge cars for entering their traffic-clogged metropolitan hearts but also ushered in a measure that was unknown to Americans and initially unpopular with commuters, and was confronted by a new Trump administration determined to tear it down. But the six-month anniversary, on 5 July, of congestion pricing highlights a string of remarkable successes. Traffic congestion in Manhattan, site of the $9 charge zone, is substantially down, cars and buses are moving faster, air quality is improving as carbon emissions drop, a creaking public transportation system has new verve and there are fewer car accidents, injuries and opportunities for incandescent New Yorker honking and yelling. In an era of assaults upon climate policy and societal betterment in general across US and around the world, New York's congestion busting has been a rare flicker of progress in 2025. 'It's been even more obviously beneficial than even the most fervent proponents had hoped, and there have been really tangible improvements that are really gratifying,' said Ben Furnas, executive director of Transportation Alternatives, a New York-based pro-transit group. 'It's been incredible to see.' Congestion pricing in New York had a tortured birth – the state's governor, Kathy Hochul, initially delayed it and cut the charge for drivers from $15 to $9, citing cost-of-living concerns – but since its January introduction the system appears to be achieving its aims. Spanning the southern tip of downtown Manhattan northwards to 60th Street, the congestion charge zone has slashed traffic delays by a quarter, with around 2m fewer cars a month now entering streets previously gridlocked in traffic. Vehicles that were previously crawling at a pace slower than a horse and cart are now moving more smoothly, with traffic speeds rising by 15%. Carbon pollution, meanwhile, has dropped by about 2.5%, with air pollution such as soot that can bury deep in people's lungs also down. Despite the faster traffic, fewer people are being directly hurt by car accidents, too. The experiment has been a reminder that cities aren't intrinsically noisy even if cars are – Furnas said that one of his favorite stats is that noise complaints along Canal Street, a key artery in lower Manhattan, have reduced by 70%. 'The quality-of-life improvement has been dramatic,' he said. 'Reducing pollution is often seen to involve a lot of sacrifices, but this has been different. People can see the improvements to their lives. There was this cynical assumption that this was a bullshit charge and life will stay the same but that assumption has gone away now.' Scaling public unpopularity in this way isn't new – London's congestion charge met initial opposition in 2003 and then, more recently, an expansion of the city's ultra-low emission zone (or Ulez) was bitterly contested. London's air quality has improved markedly and support has since edged up, though, a forerunner of the New York experience, where more people now support the charge than oppose it – a reversal of what the polls showed prior to its imposition. A primary motivation for the congestion charge was to raise funds for the beleaguered Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), which presides over one of the most extensive public transport systems in the world but has struggled with a spluttering subway that runs on antediluvian technology through often squalid stations. Fears of subway-based crime, regularly amplified by the Trump administration, have also bedeviled the MTA's attempts to lure commuters back following Covid. Congestion pricing revenue, though, is on track to reach $500m this year, allowing upgrades to the subway, the purchase of several hundred new electric buses and improvements to regional rail. Hochul, with the zeal of new convert, said the scheme has been a 'huge success' and pointed out that people are still flocking to Manhattan stores, restaurants and Broadway shows, with pedestrian activity up 8% in May compared with the same month last year. Subway visits have also increased by 7%. 'We've also fended off five months of unlawful attempts from the federal government to unwind this successful program and will keep fighting – and winning – in the courts,' the governor said. 'The cameras are staying on.' Trump has continued his quest to kill off congestion charging in his native city, however, prematurely declaring success in this endeavor in a memorable February post on X in which he was depicted in an oil painting wearing a crown, triumphantly standing in front of the Empire State Building. 'CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!' the president wrote. Trump's Department of Transportation has attempted to withdraw federal approval of the scheme but its deadlines to end congestion pricing have so far been thwarted by the courts and the department has, in frustration, replaced its own lawyers, accusing them of undermining its case. Sean Duffy, the US transportation secretary, has said the charge is unfair to drivers and is 'classist' against the working poor (even though they overwhelmingly take buses or trains, rather than drive), and threatened to cut federal funding to New York transit. 'If you can't keep your subway safe, if people can't go to the subway and not be afraid of being stabbed or thrown in front of tracks or burned, we are going to pull your money,' Duffy said in March. The administration confirmed it will forge ahead with its legal battle. 'In the 11th hour of his failing administration, Joe Biden cowardly approved this absurd experiment that makes federally funded roads inaccessible to many taxpayers without giving them a toll-free alternative,' said a Department of Transportation spokesperson. 'We can all agree that the New York City subway needs fixing, but drivers should not be expected to foot the bill.' But the series of courtroom defeats suffered by the Trump administration have strengthened the congestion charge's future, according to Michael Gerrard, an environmental law expert at Columbia Law School. 'The administration have suffered a series of resounding defeats, they haven't got anywhere,' said Gerrard. 'It's clear that Donald Trump doesn't like New York City and wants to do anything he can to increase the use of fossil fuels. I don't know if Donald Trump has ever been on the subway.' Other opposition remains, too, although it has become more muted of late. A leading critique of congestion pricing was that it will simply pile up traffic at the boundaries of the charge zone, although a recent report found the opposite has occurred – traffic delays are down 10% in the Bronx and have even been reduced by 14% in the commuter belt of Bergen county, in New Jersey. 'Conceptually it's a good idea, but let's get a fair deal for Jersey,' conceded Phil Murphy, governor of New Jersey, on a recent podcast with the comedian Hasan Minhaj. Murphy previously called the charge a 'disaster' and is still involved in legal action to stop it, although he now says he will accept a 'deal' whereby his state gets some of the revenue and the toll is lowered somewhat. Murphy acknowledged traffic is down but he questions if it will last. 'The data from London suggests it won't continue,' said the governor, pointing to how the UK capital is now the most congested city in Europe, with drivers spending an average of 101 hours sitting in traffic last year, despite its own toll. However, others think New York may be different, a long-term habit switch from driving thanks to its dense public transport links. If it survives its Trumpian attack, the scheme may even be replicated by cities elsewhere in the US. If highways and bridges can be tolled, as they often are in the US, why not the core of cities too? 'It's been such a success that I think others will look at this,' said Furnas. 'Not everywhere has New York's public transit, but we would be wise to apply these sort of benefits to other places, too.'
Yahoo
07-07-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Democrats retreat on climate: ‘It's one of the more disappointing turnabouts'
SACRAMENTO, California — Donald Trump is coming for California's signature climate policies — and so is California. Stung by the party's sweeping losses in November and desperate to win back working-class voters, the Democratic Party is in retreat on climate change. Nowhere is that retrenchment more jarring than in the nation's most populous state, a longtime bastion of progressive politics on the environment. In the past two weeks alone, California Democrats have retrenched on environmental reviews for construction projects, a cap on oil industry profits and clean fuel mandates. Elected officials are warning that ambitious laws and mandates are driving up the state's onerous cost of living, echoing longstanding Republican arguments and frustrating some allies who say Democrats are capitulating to political pressure. 'California was the vocal climate leader during the first Trump administration,' said Chris Chavez, deputy policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air. "It's questionable whether or not that leadership is still there." California leaders are still positioning themselves as the vanguard of the resistance to the president's environmental rollbacks, and polls still consistently find voters believe addressing climate change is worth the cost. Gov. Gavin Newsom has sued to block Trump's removal of California's permission to enforce its clean car standards and vowed to extend a landmark cap-and-trade program imperiled by Trump. But they're in a far different position than during Trump's first term, when they were signing deals with automakers to keep the state's emissions rules afloat — and even two years ago, when they were taking on oil companies by threatening to cap their profits. It's a reversal that is dismaying to climate activists, an outspoken part of the Democratic Party's base. And it's a tradeoff — freighted with significant and potentially long-lasting policy implications — that party leaders are making in an effort to regain political strength. 'We've got some challenges, and so it just requires some new considerations,' Newsom told reporters last week, after his administration proposed steering clear of the oil-profits cap as a way to keep refineries open. 'It's not rolling back anything — that's actually marching forward in a way that is thoughtful and considered.' Other parts of the country are pulling back on climate policies in the name of affordability, too. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is delaying plans for a carbon-trading system and slowing enforcement of the state's rules for clean cars and trucks, which follow California's. Maryland Gov. Wes Moore is similarly pausing on carbon trading. And in Congress, some 36 Democrats — including two from California — signed on to the effort to overturn California's vehicle rules. But California, as the state with the strongest suite of climate policies and a decades-long reputation of stalwart environmentalism, is now becoming an unlikely leader in Democrats' pivot as they try to respond to cost-of-living concerns that they fret may have cost them the election. 'This is part of the Democrats' doing some soul-searching and really trying to figure out what they stand for,' said Marie Liu, California director at the Energy Foundation and a former top climate adviser to legislative Democrats. Newsom and other Democrats last week infuriated environmentalists by punching exemptions for housing developments and other projects like health clinics and high-speed rail into a decades-old law requiring a wide range of projects to clear environmental reviews. A separate push in the state Senate to dilute the state's stringent fuel rules drew a rebuke from the head of California's powerful Air Resources Board, who called it 'irresponsible' in the face of a federal onslaught. And Newsom in March ordered his recycling regulator to rewrite plastic waste reduction rules to lessen costs for businesses, which upset the state lawmakers and environmental groups who originally negotiated the waste reduction deal but energized business groups opposing similar rules in New York. The backtracking reflects a pervasive sense that once-popular climate policies are exacting a political price by pushing up energy and housing costs, draining support from both Democratic candidates and climate policies themselves. 'For a lot of Democrats, the 2024 election was a reality check about the importance of cost-of-living issues and affordability for Californians,' said Mark Baldassare, survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California. 'That's given policymakers some pause about what is actually workable in terms of environmental policy.' Newsom and allies are retrenching in Sacramento as Republicans in Washington take aim at core California climate planks, like its longstanding ability to set tougher pollution limits. Yet even on Capitol Hill, Democrats who typically decry Trump's agenda have sided with Republicans who call California's policies unsustainable. Rep. Lou Correa, who has said the 2024 election showed Democrats must heed cost-strained voters, and Rep. George Whitesides, who flipped a commuter-heavy Los Angeles district last cycle, voted to block Newsom's order phasing out the sale of new entirely gas-powered vehicles by 2035. Climate change has dominated Sacramento's agenda in recent years. Newsom spent substantial political capital in 2022 to muscle through a sweeping set of environmental laws, reviving efforts that had formerly succumbed to resistance from the oil industry and its union allies. Newsom followed up by pushing to cap industry profits. Not in 2025. 'Affordability' has become the watchword for Democrats who saw inflation woes drive votes to Republicans across the 2024 ballot. In a poll presented to Assembly Democrats during a caucus meeting, cost of living led voters' stated priorities. Climate change sat in last place. Yet Liu warned Democrats were learning the wrong lesson by focusing narrowly on immediate concerns like gas prices at the expense of a larger effort to shift from fossil fuels. 'It's easy to focus on the very short-term responses but not take the longer-term view,' Liu said, which would require 'not just playing around on ten cents a gallon, but looking at the actual transition to cleaner alternatives.' In-state oil producers have maintained political pressure on Democrats, spending more than $15 million over the last two years on a sustained campaign of mailers and advertisements blaming the state's climate policies for high prices. Signs at gas stations urge voters to put pressure on their elected officials. Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president and CEO of the Western States Petroleum Association, said she was heartened by regulators' recent recommendations to pause a refinery profit margin cap and streamline permitting for in-state crude oil production. 'I had no idea that it would sort of come to fruition this year, but I am encouraged by it," she said. Republicans have pummeled Newsom and Democrats over the state gas tax's annual increase and a tightening of the state's fuel standards. To some GOP leaders in California, Democrats' recent backtracking validates years of Republican warnings about cost-inflating climate policies. 'Of course Democrats are on the defensive and scrambling on climate policies — they're losing,' Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones said in a statement. 'Californians love the environment and rightly expect clean air, clean water, and clean streets. What they don't love are out-of-touch policies that destroy livelihoods in the name of climate change.' State laws explicitly direct California to move away from fossil fuels, which would mean putting the state's historically large and politically powerful oil industry out of business. Yet the threat of plummeting production — with two refineries announcing their plans to close within the past year — has rattled elected officials, who fear plunging capacity could lead to a price spike. The California Energy Commission's plan to keep refineries operating specifically seeks to avoid that scenario. 'We always knew this was going to be a really tough time, where we've made enough progress that refineries have to make tough business decisions but you still have a majority of Californians relying on gasoline,' said Daniel Barad, western states policy senior manager for the Union of Concerned Scientists. 'You have to do things in this mid-transition point that's going to make your stomach hurt a bit but is going to stabilize gas prices in the near term.' The shifting dynamics are spilling into the debate over the state's landmark cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gas emissions, which both state lawmakers and Newsom have endorsed extending beyond its 2030 expiration date. But Newsom upset environmentalists — and cheered business groups — by declining to endorse fixes to the program aimed at further reducing emissions. The politics have moved markedly since California reauthorized the program in 2017. At the time, then-Republican Assembly leader Chad Mayes persuaded a handful of fellow Republicans to vote for it, arguing it was a more market-friendly option. He lost his job as a result. Mayes said progressive Democrats explicitly told him at the time that they wanted a more aggressive set of rules in part because they would push up oil prices, hastening a shift to alternative energy. Now, he said, Democrats are responding to the 'very clear signal voters are sending to their elected officials' that 'it's just too much right now.' 'If you're going to talk about affordability then you have to be honest about the policies you've put in place and what those costs are,' said Mayes, who left the Republican Party in 2019 and now oversees climate policy for a lobbying firm whose clients include renewable energy companies. 'It's appropriate for people to take a second look and say: 'How expensive are we going to allow our energy costs to be?'" But to many climate activists, that kind of calculation reads more like a surrender. 'It's one of the more disappointing turnabouts,' said Consumer Watchdog President Jamie Court, whose group has advocated tougher oil industry rules. 'We have backed down, and we may not be flying a white handkerchief, but it's pretty close to white." Marie J. French, Alex Nieves and Jordan Wolman contributed to this report.
